Talk:Cymbeline

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdeluca33, AliENGL304, Alidiack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

History

British chieftain, Cunobelin?, who reigned at the time of the Roman invasion.--when is that? do we have dates by chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisDaniels (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 October 2002

I've added the link, for those who want to know the actual history. Also Asimov's interesting observation about the similarities to the history of Augustus & Livia - at least the version of it later novelised as I, Claudius. For instance Agrippa Postumus was Augustus's grandson and rejected heir. Of course if this was the sources, Shakespeare must have decided to change it a great deal. Hypothetically, he began a Tragedy of Augustus, felt it wasn't working and re-wrote it as the play we have.

Augustus concentrated on Germany, leaving Britain alone and in fact failing in Germany. Caligula maybe contemplated invading Britain but did not try it. The actual invasion was done by Claudius. --GwydionM 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Cassius Dio, Augustus did consider invading Britain three times, in 34, 27 and 25 BC (Roman History 49.38, 53.22, 53.25), although he never actually crossed the channel. All three occasions predated Cunobelinus by some time, though. --Nicknack009 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the actual source though?--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Performances

This past weekend, a Swedish theater group in my part of New York state performed their version of Cymbeline entitled Immo and Leo. Just a thought... JB82 19:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

If you want to see Cymbeline and you are in Montana, Montana Shakespeare in the Parks is showing it over the course of the 2005 summer. I enjoyed their performance of Cymbeline. Jrincayc 3 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Cymbeline is running until 11 November 2007 at Chicago Shakespeare Theatre [1], a production directed by Barbara Gaines.69.209.205.113 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Female roles

Imogen is one of the very small number of great female roles in Shakespeare.

Really? I can think of at least a dozen other good ones (Lady Macbeth, Goneril, Regan, Cordelia, Gertrude, Ophelia, Desdemona, Cleopatra, Miranda, Rosalind, Titania, Beatrice, Portia, Viola, Olivia), and that's only going with the most famous plays, not even getting into plays of the level of fame of Cymbeline. On what basis do we make this statement? john k 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it means small in comparison to the number of great male roles? I agree, though, that it's an oddly-expressed statement. The Singing Badger 15:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there are more great male roles. But "very small" seems odd - especially since I've never heard Imogen described as a particularly great role... john k 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Imogen isn't a particularly big part for an actress, at least in comparison with some of Shakespeare's other women, but she does get a lot of praise as one of Shakespeare's most attractive heroines. However, I don't see that statement in the article, so I guess it was removed some time back. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Misc

How did this remain for two weeks? – ugen64 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Poison

Who is the target of the "poison"  ??? The summary makes it sound like it is both for Imogen and Cymbeline but it is given to Pisiano and he is told it is medicine. Who is actually supposed to drink it? This makes it sound like Pisiano is not supposed to drink it, but some other things I have read make it seem like it is intended for Pisiano...? Anyone have any information about this? Kiega 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific dose of poison in the play is intended for Pisanio, although the Queen also threatens to use the same poison on Imogen. The key line, spoken by the Queen immediately after giving Pisanio the poison, is: "I have given him that, / Which if he take, shall quite unpeople her / Of liegers for her sweet: And which she after, / Except she bend her humor, shall be assur’d / To taste of too." Pisanio is the "lieger of her sweet", so when he takes the poison she will be "unpeopled" of such liegers. But then she goes on to say that, unless Imogen agrees to marry her son ("except she bend her humor"), then she will "taste" it, too. Justin Bacon (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Staging - Decapitated Cloten

I was of the impression this is a real piece of theatre - a god descending from the skies and throwing gunpowder on the stage ("sulphurous to smell"), and the stage direction concerning the British and Roman armies.

The decapitated Cloten bit: it's probable that the actor who played Posthumos also played Cloten. Note the bit when Cloten says 'How fit his garments serve me'; all the actor would have done is gone out in his Posthumos garb but speaking his Cloten voice. This explains why Cymbeline states all that stuff about knowing his "Martial thigh" when she awakes beside the decapitated body of Cloten. JoeBlogsDord 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Form

The debate over the best designation of the play's form (Tragedy/Comedy/Romance/Tragi-comedy) is an interesting one, especially as the play does not perfectly fit into any of those four categories. Whilst not a "tragi-comedy" in the purely Chekhovian sense of the word, it is undeniable that a production of the play can waver greatly between the tragic and comic. Meanwhile, the term "Romance" is a more stylistic generalisation (such as "History" to describe a comedy or tragedy that recounts historical events), describing the fairytale-like qualities of most of Shakespeare's later plays (which arose, conversely, as a result of advances in special effects technology, a development that explains the proliferation of storms, as well as the god Jupiter's cameo in Cymbeline, in the later plays). I have mentioned the form "tragi-comedy" (specifically, a plotline that is tragic in the strict, literary sense of the word, but that evolves in a comic way) as it best describes the form of the play, within the stylistic context of "Romance". Such hibrids of comedy and tragedy were increasingly popular at the time Cymbeline was written, as is seen in all of Shakespeare's Romances (e.g. The Winter's Tale, Pericles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.118.92 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 May 2007

Confusing sentence

The following is difficult to make sense of:

The play has a relationship with Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding, a tragicomedy that Beaumont and Fletcher wrote ca. 1609-10, which tends to support this dating around 1609, though it is not clear which play preceded the other.

I suggest rewriting it. RedRabbit 09:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Location of Luds Town

Surely the most likely location of Luds town as a place to dsplay Clotens head would have been Ludlow, an important military town on the Welsh Borders in Shakespear's day.81.86.54.87 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

King Lud was the legendary founder of London, and an Elizabethan audience in London would have taken 'Lud's town' to be their own city. 'Ludgate' in London was popularly supposed to take its name from Lud or his burial site, though modern place-name scholars reject this derivation. 109.158.130.214 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tennyson

It might not be important enough to mention, although I wonder if it might go into the Cultural References part, but Tennyson died reading Cymbeline - http://www.nndb.com/people/859/000024787/

George Bernard Shaw's Cymbeline Refinished

As far as I understand George Bernard Shaw's criticism on Cymbeline it derived from the substantially cut stage productions he had witnessed. especially Act V. He then set forth to write a new "enhanced" ending of the play, but this was only to prove that Shakespeare's own final Act was much superior to any of the stagings he had attented. Thus Cymbeline Refinished does but serve to mock the stage directors and certainly not Shakespeare's text and the mastery he employs in bringing the play to its happy ending. If one ventures to read Shaw's text, its absurdities and ridiculousness openly reveal the author's intentions.Danninx (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Postumus or Posthumus

When someone changed the caption of the painting from Posthumus to Postumus, I changed it back, because I was aware of the character Postumus. However, having checked as much as I can - including asking on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Postumus or Posthumus - and especially because (as I was told there), Christie's say they sold Posthumus and Imogen in 2007, I accept that the spelling is correct, as far as we can see.

So undone my own edit, and it is back to "Posthumus".

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd paragraph

The following 3 sentences are no doubt true (& you might argue that Jupiter's intervention is only needed because the plot has got so convoluted) but as they stand I see no logical connection between the first and the other two: 'Some have taken the convoluted plot as evidence of the play's parodic origins. In Act V Scene IV, "Jupiter descends in thunder and lightning, sitting upon an eagle: he throws a thunderbolt." After stating that Posthumus' fortunes will improve, Jupiter returns to heaven on his eagle.' Could someone make it read more clearly?Costesseyboy (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pleeze himproove mee grammour!

The text of the article contains the following sentence:

"Cymbeline did have two sons but they were stolen twenty years ago by Belarius.".

In my opinion this needs to be changed to:

"Cymbeline did have two sons but they were stolen twenty years before by Belarius.".

What do you think?

In the same way you can say:

"I lost my job a month ago."

But, in my opinion, you can't say:

"I got a new job in 2010. I had lost my old job a month ago."

You must say:

"I got a new job in 2010. I had lost my old job a month before."

Again, what do you think?

Thanks!

Contact Basemetal here 20:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What I think is that you should go ahead and make whatever changes you think need to be made. Your edits indicate you know what you're doing. And thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Students from the English course "Shakespeare and Media" at the University of Maryland, College Park will be working on improvements to the References section between April 18, 2019 and May 1, 2019. We will be adding a Sources section, and plan to add Notes. We would love to have feedback and assistance from experienced Wikipedians. Thank you! Hallep620 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to work on Wikipedia! You might want to get in touch with the education team, I've left you a message aimed at course instructors at your talk page which will provide more guidance. Thanks for helping, RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a student from the English course "Shakespeare and Media" at the University of Maryland, College Park and I have been working on the Notes section of the Cymbeline Wikipedia page. I am having trouble figuring out how to move a Reference to the Notes section without creating an error in the formatting. I would like to move Reference #5 by J.M. Nosworthy to Note b. in the Notes section, but am unable to do so. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Hallep620 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hallep620, I believe I have fixed it by using <ref group="lower-alpha"> instead of {{efn}}. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Original sub-plots

Currently the sources section contains the following sentence:
"Shakespeare, however, freely adapts the legend and adds entirely original sub-plots."
It isn't cited and the original sub-plots it mentions are not elaborated upon. Does anyone know where this claim comes from, or what sub-plots are known to be all Shakespeare's? If the 'original sub-plots' refer to the following discussion of the wager plot, the sentence might need clarification to avoid the impression that Shakespeare alone was responsible for coming up with the wager plot, rather than just combining it with historical legend. -SMambs (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Imogen versus Innogen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Community Tech bot: Hi, I recognize the copyright issue with this picture, and it has been deleted with two other images I added on the page that may also have the same issue. Thank you for recognizing this mistake! Gdeluca33 (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Gdeluca33,  Comment: Community Tech Bot is an automated system. Another editor will have actually nominated the file. ~ RhinosF1^{(chat - live)}/_(contribs) 20:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)